I’m fascinated by the politics and implications of the “scandal” around the erroneous statistics and predictions in the IPCC 2007 report. For a discipline so new like climate change science establishing itself in such a media-saturated and real-time age, it’s inevitable that every detail and line included will undergo rigorous and opinionated scrutiny. I read a great article from the Sydney Morning Herald by Matt Wade, who dug a little deeper into who Rajendra Pachauri is, the factors surrounding the calls for him to step down as UN climate change chief, and why he “scoffs at calls to step down”.

Pachauri has come under fire from critics because of the now widely-publicized mistaken assertion that the Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035, and more recently by the revelation that the IPCC 2007 report messed up when they reprinted a statistic that 55% of the Netherlands was under sea level. In truth, the glaciers will not be gone by 2035 and only 26% of the Netherlands is under sea level- 29% is at risk for flooding from rivers (add them up and you get your 55%). Can you imagine Galileo figuring out how to measure things with the telescope under social media scrutiny? Or if we were getting dispatches from Darwin WHILE he was in the Galapagos? That’s kind of what is going on here with climate change science. Something we don’t know much about evolving right before our media-saturated eyes.

As UN climate change chief, Pachauri is the lightning rod for criticism and the focus of complaints that if the report messed up basic stats, how can the overall science be trusted? How can nations use the information in the report to set policy? How can the UN stand behind a document that is not 100% accurate on such a contentious topic?

For their part, the UN is very much endorsing Pachauri. Crucially but as expected, the government of India (where he is from) is also standing behind him. This is significant as India was one of the countries most affected by the glacier prediction, so to see them stand behind him shows that they believe in his work and the overall message of the report, and are willing to overlook a statistical error.

Wade points out that Pachauri is a member of the Brahmin caste in India, the highest caste there, and that there is little history of Indian officials stepping down voluntarily. Both of these seem to be influential reasons for why Pachauri stands firm in wanting to continue in his position and refuses to step down. In addition, Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh has endorsed the overall scientific conclusion of the IPCC report. That and, I would think, that everything else in the report is something he believes to be correct.

Wade writes that Pachauri has been involved with the IPCC since the early 1990’s as a lead report author for one of the foundational reports for the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. He has been IPCC chairman since 2002 and was re-elected for a second term in 2008 by acclamation.

Pachauri is not going anywhere. And neither is climate change- both its effects and the controversy surrounding its science.

Photo Credit: European Parliament (via Flickr under CCL)